JUDGMENT & ORDER : Heard Mr. B Borah, learned amicus curiae and Mr. PS Lahkar, learned Addl. PP, Assam. 2. This revision is directed against the judgment and order dated 30-11-2004 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Jorhat affirming the conviction and sentence of the revision petitioner in GR Case No. 267/2002 by the CJM, Jorhat whereby the accused/revision petitioner was convicted under Section 326 IPC and sentenced to imprisonment for 2 (two) years and a fine of Rs.5,000/- with default stipulation. 3. The prosecution case as unfolded during trial is that on 26-03-2002, the revision petitioner Bhola Kalita inflicted injury to victim Bubul Bora by a dao and an FIR was lodged by PW-2. On the basis of such FIR, police registered a case and eventually submitted charge-sheet against the revision petitioner Bhola Kalita under Section 326 IPC. 4. In course of trial, learned Magistrate examined 11 witnesses. The defence also examined one witness being the wife of the revision petitioner. On conclusion of trial, the learned Magistrate convicted the accused/revision petitioner and awarded sentence as indicated above. 5. Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence awarded by the learned Magistrate, the revision petitioner filed an appeal before the learned Sessions Judge and the learned Sessions Judge by the impugned judgment and upheld the conviction and sentence awarded by the learned Magistrate. 6. Aggrieved by the judgment of the learned appellate Court, the revision petitioner has preferred the instant appeal. 7. From the evidence and materials on record, it appears that the learned Magistrate convicted the accused/revision petitioner basically relying on the evidence of Pw-1 and Pw-3. Pw-1 was the victim himself and Pw-3 was the sole eye witness. The other witnesses, who have been examined were not the eye witnesses to the occurrence, as they reached to the place of occurrence after the occurrence was over. 8. Pw-1 the victim stated categorically in his evidence that for his business transaction with Nagen Kalita, Nagen Kalita was to pay him Rs.100/-. When he (Pw-1) went to Nagen Kalita to bring that Rs.100/-, Nagen Kalita told him that accused Bhola Kalita had asked him not to pay the said amount. Then he went to Bhola Kalita accompanied with Nagen Kalita to enquire, why he had prevented Nagen Kalita to pay the amount and Nagen Kalia also accompanied him. When he (Pw-1) went to Nagen Kalita to bring that Rs.100/-, Nagen Kalita told him that accused Bhola Kalita had asked him not to pay the said amount. Then he went to Bhola Kalita accompanied with Nagen Kalita to enquire, why he had prevented Nagen Kalita to pay the amount and Nagen Kalia also accompanied him. As soon as they reached the place of Bhola Kalita, Bhola Kalita suddenly snatched the dao from the hand of Nagen Kalita and inflicted injury on his leg. 9. This categorical evidence of the victim has been supported by Pw-3, Nagen Kalita, who was an eye witness of the occurrence. Although both these two witnesses were subjected to cross-examination, they successfully withstood the cross-examination and the defence failed to create any dent in the testimony of the Pw-1 and Pw-3. The medical evidence adduced by Pw-5 and the exhibit-4, the injury report also lent support to the oral evidence of Pw-1 and Pw-3. On the basis of such evidence, the learned Trial Court convicted the accused/revision petitioner and awarded sentence as indicated above. 10. The learned Sessions Judge also upheld the conviction and sentence concurring with the appreciation of evidence by the trial Court. This Court while exercising the revisional power is not supposed to replace the view of the learned Trial Court on appreciation of the evidence and on the factual finding arrived at by the learned Trial Court and concurred is first appellate Court, by its own view. 11. Having considering the totality of the evidence, I am of the view that the learned Trial Court as well as the learned appellate Court has not committed any illegality or irregularity in the judgment, whereby the accused was convicted and sentenced to imprisonment. There is also no material to hold that the finding of the learned Trial Court or the first appellate court has suffered from any perversity. Therefore, unless the finding of the learned Trial Court is perverse or against the weight of the evidence, the revisional Court is not supposed to interfere with such finding of facts as well as the appreciation of evidence made by the learned Trial Court. 12. In the above view of the matter, I am of the considered opinion that there is no reason to interfere with the judgment of the learned Trial Court convicting the accused/revision petitioner and upheld by the appellate Court. 12. In the above view of the matter, I am of the considered opinion that there is no reason to interfere with the judgment of the learned Trial Court convicting the accused/revision petitioner and upheld by the appellate Court. The quantum of sentence awarded by the trial Court, and upheld by the appellate Court demonstrates that both the Courts have been extremely lenient while awarding sentence, which appears to be quite commensurating with the offence, warranting no interference by this Court. 13. Accordingly, the revision petition is dismissed. 14. Appreciating the assistance rendered by Mr. B Borah, learned Amicus Curiae, I hereby provide that he will be entitled to fees, as Legal Aid Counsel as per the norms fixed by the Legal Services Authority Regulation. Upon production of a copy of this judgment, Guwahati High Court Legal Services Committee, shall pay the fee to Mr. Borah. 15. Send back the LCR.